Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Puff piece (Score 1) 504 504

Interesting new development. I just read that Judge U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon has found that the metadata program is likely unconstitutional on 4th amendment grounds. May end up in the Supreme Court. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html

Comment: Re:Puff piece (Score 1) 504 504

I suppose they could break their promise and look at the calls and emails. Technically, it would be quite simple to transcribe all those conversations, index them, and data mine them for any reason they can think of: drug war, kiddie porn, copyright infringement, whatever. Sometime in the future, when the public becomes more comfortable with the current level of surveillance, probably they will, with approval from Congress as well. I trust the NSA to the extent that I think they are mainly focused on terrorism, at least for now, although I don't expect they are entirely honest of course. I'm more worried about Congress giving them explicit permission to do all those things.

Comment: Re:Puff piece (Score 1) 504 504

You seem to be misunderstanding how this works. I read elsewhere that they scoop up all the data and metadata, which they save for a certain period (I think one year, maybe). They look at the metadata for all phone calls and emails, and if it looks suspicious (as it currently does for 60 people) they get a warrant (or court order, I'm not sure) to pull the actual contents of the phone call from their electronic records. This approach allows them to get after-the-fact warrants for a wiretap. So they are indeed storing everyone's phone calls and emails in their expensive storage facility, they just aren't looking at them without permission (which they get from examining the metadata, that is, phone numbers called and email headers sent). Make sense?

Comment: Re:but where are the Golden Tablets? (Score 1) 504 504

It occurs to me that his actions really benefit his girlfriend. Now the US government and other actors can't attack her, thinking that she knows some vital piece of national security. If that is what he had in mind, I think he exercised responsibility and foresight.

Comment: Re:Human soceity not ready for this (Score 1) 370 370

That reminds me of a famous incident where a circus elephant named Mary was hanged by the neck until dead for committing murder on a human. She got angry at her human handler for prodding her and stomped him. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(elephant) for the details and a pic of Mary's hanging. I don't think she got to defend herself in a court of law, though.

My two cents on the subject is I think the law could accommodate intelligent animals, but each species should probably be treated differently based on their nature and capabilities. I don't think treating them as persons is the right idea.

Comment: Re:This is illegal, you know (Score 1) 192 192

I thought of that. Some variation of it might work in some countries or states worldwide, though. Nevada, maybe? Both gambling and prostitution are legal there. Plus, if you describe it as a "date" or some other appropriate weasel words, you might be able to work around the laws.

Comment: Re:Bahahahahaha (Score 1) 192 192

What's your suggestion for a business model? I just finished reading "Free: The Future of a Radical Price", by Chris Anderson. Here's my idea: sex raffles. The porn stars give away free porn recordings then use their fame to sell raffle tickets. For $50, you buy a chance to have sex with a porn star. Sell 10,000 tickets, have sex with the winner, and it's just as profitable as selling porn.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming